Why is it so hard to find a monitor like this?

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

For as much as I love my 3440x1440 screen resolution, I think I would benefit from having a 4k monitor especially if I want to stream (might make life easier) but I cant find a monitor I like.

What I need/want in a monitor are:

• >27in
• IPS
• DP 1.4 & HDMI 2.1
• 100hz Refresh or greater
• Bezel-less
• Full height, tilt, pivot functionality
• VESA mountable
• Gsync compatible
• Around 1ms response time

Dell needs to make a 4k ultrasharp gaming monitor.

 

[phill]

I do miss my 3 Dell's I had.. They where such brilliant monitors.. I had 3008 models and 60Hz gaming for me at the time wasn't an issue at all Ah to have some money to spend on some lovely monitors... The only problem I would have buying them now would be there's no way to test them.. No local shops to go in look at the tech and walk away.. It's a right pain Spending a few quid on a monitor as well would be gutting if you pick the wrong one..

Much like yourself tho, I'd love something like that as well

 

[potato580+]

got nothing to say, must be expensive ever, well i stick with cheapest one

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I know of a 27" 4K 144 Hz product coming that seems to check most (or all) of your boxes but it's not out yet.

1ms + IPS isn't happening.

 

[potato580+]

I know of a 27" 4K 144 Hz product coming that seems to check most (or all) of your boxes but it's not out yet.

1ms + IPS isn't happening.

its happening, but in terms of vrb nor mprt

 

[las]

2160p on 27" requires scaling if you have 20/20 vision.

I'd go for 32" for that res.

 

[phill]

2160p on 27" requires scaling if you have 20/20 vision. I'd go for 32" for that res.

I'd consider possibly something slightly bigger as well if it came to it.. But 32" wouldn't be so big on the desk it would cause issues...

 

[The Egg]

4k at 100hz sounds great, but it's not the cost of the display that bothers me, it's the ultra-premium GPU requirement.

 

[bonehead123]

it's not the cost of the display that bothers me, it's the ultra-premium GPU requirement

"if'n yaz wanna play, yaz gotsta PAY" hehehe

FYI, Sammy makes some excellent 32" 4K screens, but not sure they check every one of your requirements

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

1ms + IPS isn't happening.

I did say "around"

 

[Bill_Bright]

Full height... ...functionality

That might be your demise. My monitors must have height adjust functionality but for some reason, they are few and hard to find.

You might have to get one without, then remove the stand and go with a universal VESA mount stand. You just need to make sure the monitor you get supports VESA mounts.

Good luck.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

FYI, 4K monitors at 144 Hz require DP 1.4 + DSC. DP 1.4 only supplies enough bandwidth for 4K 120 Hz so you'd need two DP cables if not using DSC.

The monitor I know about sounds exactly what you're looking for so I'll try to remember to reply to this thread again when it launches. I have no idea what it will cost.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

FYI, 4K monitors at 144 Hz require DP 1.4 + DSC. DP 1.4 only supplies enough bandwidth for 4K 120 Hz so you'd need two DP cables if not using DSC.

The monitor I know about sounds exactly what you're looking for so I'll try to remember to reply to this thread again when it launches. I have no idea what it will cost.

The monitor you know about have a name that you can share?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Nope.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Nope.

Sad face.

 

[las]

4k at 100hz sounds great, but it's not the cost of the display that bothers me, it's the ultra-premium GPU requirement.

Nvidia Ampere @ Samsung 7nm EUV is coming soon tho.

It will be a true generational leap.

2160p @ 100 fps avg is not going to be that crazy, 2080 Super and 2080 Ti generally does this, unless you just max every single setting "just because".

I expect RTX 3070 to beat 2080 Ti slightly. For 449-499 bucks.

 

[Aquinus]

It will be a true generational leap.

I expect RTX 3070 to beat 2080 Ti slightly. For 449-499 bucks.

I expect sources for such a claim because that's... quite a claim.

 

[las]

I expect sources for such a claim because that's... quite a claim.

Why you need sources? Use logic.

Turing was disappointing -> Gapfiller. Meant for 10nm, not 12nm. Bad sales.

Ampere -> Brand new arch. Samsung 7nm EUV (low prices, high yields). Nvidia want's to recap marketshare, meaning better prices.

You'll see in Q1 2020. March is my prediction. Right before Cyberpunk, which will feature RTX. Ampere will shine.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Spoiler: Off Topic

I expect RTX 3070 to beat 2080 Ti slightly. For 449-499 bucks.

RTX 2070 is about 10% slower than 1080 Ti. It debuted at $500 for AIB, $600 for Founders. Like Aquinus, I think you're thinking too highly of NVIDIA NGREEDIA.

Turing was disappointing -> Gapfiller. Meant for 10nm, not 12nm. Bad sales.

Turing was designed for 12nm. It had bad sales because the price is high and RTX technologies aren't very compelling.

Ampere -> Brand new arch. Samsung 7nm EUV (low prices, high yields). Nvidia want's to recap marketshare, meaning better prices.

Ampere is very likely to be a shrunk Turing. You don't debut a new architecture and shrink together--too much risk.

Nothing 7nm is cheap. TSMC/Samsung has huge R&D costs to recover. Demand is high and supply is low. In fact, NVIDIA may be pursuing Samsung because NVIDIA doesn't want to compete with AMD demand for wafers (CPU mostly but also GPU and soon, APUs and next gen consoles). Turing are huge chips and Ampere aren't likely to be much improved in that regard--they need a lot of wafers and that size difference means narrowing margins. NVIDIA might be taking a big risk on Samsung because their 7nm is less mature than TSMC's.

...none of this has anything to do with the thread topic. I'm gonna spoiler that.

 

[las]

RTX 2070 is about 10% slower than 1080 Ti. It debuted at $500 for AIB, $600 for Founders. Like Aquinus, I think you're thinking too highly of NVIDIA NGREEDIA.


Turing was designed for 12nm. It had bad sales because the price is high and RTX technologies aren't very compelling.

Turing had/has the worst price/perf increase gen to gen ever. This is fact. Hence the bad sales. Not sure why you compare 2070 vs 1080 Ti. 1080 Ti beats 2070 with ease. Most of the time it also beat 2070 Super and sometimes even 2080 non-Super.

This is how bad Turing was. Usually x70 beats last gen's Ti model.

You are wrong, again. Turing was meant for Samsung 10nm, but something did not work out and they settled with TSMC 12nm and cut specs. This is fact -> Google it. This is part of the reason why Turing lacks performance and 1080 Ti remains relevant in the high-end segment. A 2017 card. The only true upgrade for 1080 Ti owners are 2080 Ti really. This is not normal gen to gen.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Nvidia Ampere @ Samsung 7nm EUV is coming soon tho.

It will be a true generational leap.

2160p @ 100 fps avg is not going to be that crazy, 2080 Super and 2080 Ti generally does this, unless you just max every single setting "just because".

I expect RTX 3070 to beat 2080 Ti slightly. For 449-499 bucks.

I agree - 3080Ti (or whatever it's going to be called) will probably be the first single gpu able to run 4k 100Hz and beyond, although probably not 144Hz and almost certainly not with everything maxed, but we are getting there. AMD on he other hand...will get another brutal awakening when their flagships will only match 3060 or so, hehe

 

[kapone32]

There was a display at Computex earlier this year and I believe at CES also for some 52' 4K 120HZ IPS screens. The price if I remember was quite eye watering though.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

52" is going to be TOO big for a gaming monitor. Personally I think 32-34" is the sweet spot for a gaming monitor.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Another problem is that 52" is has a panel likely sourced from a TV which likely means text will look bad unless you're sitting a long ways from it. Honestly anything 4K not in the low 30s and down isn't made to be a monitor. Sure there's some exceptions like the Surface Hub but it's higher resolution than 4K (
3840 x 2560, 3:2 ratio).

 

[kapone32]

Another problem is that 52" is has a panel likely sourced from a TV which likely means text will look bad unless you're sitting a long ways from it. Honestly anything 4K not in the low 30s and down isn't made to be a monitor.

I hear you talking but I have a 49" 4k monitor from Acer and absolutely love it. There are no problems with text.

52" is going to be TOO big for a gaming monitor. Personally I think 32-34" is the sweet spot for a gaming monitor.

No it is not. People play consoles on 50+ screens. Trust me when any of my friends see games on my 49" screen they get envious. Two of them have actually gone out and bought the exact same monitor I have. The kicker is they can be had for around $500. And no it is not a TV re branded as a monitor. I am not sure if you can get this anymore but I would buy it again in a heartbeat.

Acer 48.5" IPS LCD/LED Monitor 4ms (G to G) 3840 x 2160 (4K) UM.SE0AA.001 - Newegg.com

Buy Acer EB0 Series EB490QK Black 48.5" IPS 60Hz, 3840x2160 4K UHD LED/LCD Monitor, Acer ComfyView Technology, Flickerless Technology, BlueLightShield Technology, Low Dimming Technology, VESA Mountable, Built in Speakers with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com